3 ms·

There's something worse than "ridiculous" for insisting on a toy that has so many drawbacks for the people around you while you're using it for your own enjoyme

There's something worse than "ridiculous" for insisting on a toy that has so many drawbacks for the people around you while you're using it for your own enjoyment. It's selfish.

enjo 5y ago
What are the drawbacks exactly?
- kevincrane 5y ago
  They're basically custom-designed to kill pedestrians and bikers if you're not paying attention for one.
  - munificent 5y ago
    You're 5x more likely to kill a pedestrian in an urban area than a rural one, and 2x as likely to do so after 6:00pm. The relative risk of being killed by a light truck compared to a car is only 1.45 (i.e. 45% greater) and is 0.96 for a heavy truck (in other words less likely than being killed by a car). Buses have a relative risk of 7.97. So living in a city and driving at night is custom-designed to kill pedestrians and selfish to do so. Encouraging public transit is even worse. Or you could just, you know, not turn this into a giant moral argument.
    - kevincrane 5y ago
      Just to clarify, he asked for a downside of trucks, I said they're far more likely to kill pedestrians and bikers than normal-sized cars in the event the driver hits someone (which is true). And the next logical step is "we should all live in the farmland and not leave the house at night"?
      - munificent 5y ago
        I think there's a difference between "One drawback is higher pedestrian fatality rates" and "They're basically custom-designed to kill pedestrians and bikers".
    - FireBeyond 5y ago
      These things are not remotely comparable. You're 5x more likely to kill someone in an urban area because more people live there (in fact, well above 5x more, so...) > being killed by a light truck compared to a car is only 1.45 (i.e. 45% greater) "Only"? "You're 50% more likely to die if a light truck hits you than a car, that's "only" a bit more!" > and is 0.96 for a heavy truck ... buses have a relative risk of 7.97 People tend to bounce off of heavy trucks, for better or worse. Buses are 1) significantly different in design than most heavy trucks, and 2) for obvious reasons, operate in very heavy pedestrian environments.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
1234letshaveatw 5y ago
Like bikers pretending they are in the tour de france amiright?
shard 5y ago
That would include most motor vehicles, due to brake dust, tire wear, and exhaust, since the alternative of using a bicycle is always available. If you need to travel long distances once in a while, you can always rent a car.
ben7799 5y ago
I hope you draw and quarter your friends who spend $50k+ on sedans/coupes/sports cars that have no reason for being other than to go faster than is legal and to burn extra gas. It's a slippery slope to go down to say you know better than others what they should be allowed to own.

There's something worse than "ridiculous" for insisting on a toy that has so many drawbacks for the people around you while you're using it for your own enjoyment. It's selfish.

enjo 5y ago

What are the drawbacks exactly?

kevincrane 5y ago
They're basically custom-designed to kill pedestrians and bikers if you're not paying attention for one.
- munificent 5y ago
  You're 5x more likely to kill a pedestrian in an urban area than a rural one, and 2x as likely to do so after 6:00pm. The relative risk of being killed by a light truck compared to a car is only 1.45 (i.e. 45% greater) and is 0.96 for a heavy truck (in other words less likely than being killed by a car). Buses have a relative risk of 7.97. So living in a city and driving at night is custom-designed to kill pedestrians and selfish to do so. Encouraging public transit is even worse. Or you could just, you know, not turn this into a giant moral argument.
  - kevincrane 5y ago
    Just to clarify, he asked for a downside of trucks, I said they're far more likely to kill pedestrians and bikers than normal-sized cars in the event the driver hits someone (which is true). And the next logical step is "we should all live in the farmland and not leave the house at night"?
    - munificent 5y ago
      I think there's a difference between "One drawback is higher pedestrian fatality rates" and "They're basically custom-designed to kill pedestrians and bikers".
  - FireBeyond 5y ago
    These things are not remotely comparable. You're 5x more likely to kill someone in an urban area because more people live there (in fact, well above 5x more, so...) > being killed by a light truck compared to a car is only 1.45 (i.e. 45% greater) "Only"? "You're 50% more likely to die if a light truck hits you than a car, that's "only" a bit more!" > and is 0.96 for a heavy truck ... buses have a relative risk of 7.97 People tend to bounce off of heavy trucks, for better or worse. Buses are 1) significantly different in design than most heavy trucks, and 2) for obvious reasons, operate in very heavy pedestrian environments.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

1234letshaveatw 5y ago

Like bikers pretending they are in the tour de france amiright?

shard 5y ago

That would include most motor vehicles, due to brake dust, tire wear, and exhaust, since the alternative of using a bicycle is always available. If you need to travel long distances once in a while, you can always rent a car.

ben7799 5y ago

I hope you draw and quarter your friends who spend $50k+ on sedans/coupes/sports cars that have no reason for being other than to go faster than is legal and to burn extra gas. It's a slippery slope to go down to say you know better than others what they should be allowed to own.